SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457
WASHINGTON - Today, a coalition of 15+ consumer, privacy, and civil rights organizations launched a new campaign, RescindRing.com. Led by Fight for the Future, Rescind Ring calls on tech reviews to rescind or suspend their recommendation of Amazon Ring doorbell cameras.
The groups--including Fight for the Future, Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), Constitutional Alliance, Demand Progress, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Kairos Action, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, MPower Change, New York Communities For Change, Oakland Privacy, Open Media and Information Companies Initiative (Open MIC), S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Secure Justice, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), and United Church of Christ, OC Inc.--argue product reviewers need to consider the overall impact of a product on society at large in addition to the value to consumers in their assessment.
Amazon Ring cameras threaten both society and consumers. Their poor security leaves consumers vulnerable to hacks and leaks as seen in the past year. Their police partnerships challenge fundamental basic liberties, violate sacred privacy rights, and along with Neighbors App--foster racial profiling and increased criminalization of Black and brown people. This racist targeting is especially worrisome when coupled with the fact that roughly half of the police departments partnered with Amazon "are responsible for over a third of fatal police encounters nationwide."
And recently some Ring doorbell cameras caught fire, prompting Amazon to recall over 350,000 doorbell cameras. This is the latest example of the tech giant moving too quickly, and being reckless with security and safety, in order to flood our communities with cameras.
The detrimental result of Ring devices and partnerships on families, communities, and democracy renders them too unsafe for recommendation.
"Tech blogs can't say 'Black Lives Matter' and then give five star ratings to products that exacerbate racism. Amazon Ring cameras are dangerous, not just for the people who buy them, but for their neighbors, their communities, and society as a whole," said Evan Greer (she/her) deputy director of Fight for the Future, "Amazon's monopoly power and aggressive pursuit of surveillance partnerships with police set them apart from their competitors. Ignoring the broader societal impact of a product does not make your review 'neutral,' it makes it reckless and incomplete. Product review sites would not recommend, for example, stalkerware apps used by abusers to track their spouses. They shouldn't recommend harmful products like Ring, either."
Ken Mickles, Chief Technical Officer at Fight for the Future, added "Beyond the obvious privacy issues, Ring has a terrible track record when it comes to security even for the users who buy them. High profile incidents where Ring cameras were hacked and used to spy on children forced the company to make some improvements, but from a technical perspective it's just a bad idea to fill your home with internet-connected devices capable of constantly watching and listening. I'd never trust one of these devices on my front door or around my kids. Review sites are putting their credibility at risk by continuing to recommend these products. Oh, and also they sometimes catch fire?"
The campaign targets CNET, Consumer Reports, Gizmodo, Tom's Guide, TechRadar, and Digital Trends for best in category Ring recommendations made in the past year. Wirecutter, another target, suspended their Ring review last December but are in the process of reviewing the camera for a possible reversal of suspension. The groups plan to mobilize thousands of supporters to get these sites to rescind their endorsement and update relevant guides before the holidays.
Greer continues, "we know these recommendations play a critical role in purchasing decisions people make during the holidays. It's important reviewers uphold their commitment to consumers and the trust the public puts in their endorsements by withdrawing or suspending their Ring recommendation. Honestly, this should have happened already. Over the summer a man was killed by sheriffs in a Ring related incident. How many people have to be jailed or killed before tech reviewers realize Ring is not safe for anyone."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"Biden was wrong about his support for Israel's war in Gaza. Trump is even worse," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The Israeli security cabinet's decision Friday to expand the military assault on Gaza came days after U.S. President Donald Trump gave tacit approval to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for full occupation of the Palestinian enclave, saying it was "pretty much up to Israel."
The president's position faced fierce criticism from analysts and Democratic lawmakers as other world leaders—including allies of Israel—decried Israeli officials' approval of a full military takeover of Gaza City.
"Netanyahu's plan to reoccupy Gaza is key to the far-right's goal of taking over Gaza and the West Bank and forcing Palestinians out," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "Meanwhile, Trump is making us a subcontractor in this operation. U.S. taxpayers should not be funding what amounts to ethnic cleansing by another name."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the expansion of Israel's war on Gaza "dangerous and illegal," adding that it is "exactly why the U.S. must stop supporting this Israeli government with military aid."
Earlier this week, Trump and members of his administration effectively shrugged when asked about Netanyahu's stated goal of seizing total military control of the Gaza Strip, which has been obliterated by nearly two years of incessant U.S.-backed Israeli bombing and ground operations.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Trump claimed that "Israel is going to help us" distribute food to starving Gazans—even as Israeli forces continued to obstruct aid distribution and massacre desperate Palestinians. Netanyahu has claimed that widespread starvation is not occurring in Gaza, a false claim that even Trump has publicly contradicted.
"As far as the rest of it, I really can't say," said Trump, referring to a reporter's question about Netanyahu's push to fully occupy Gaza. "That's gonna be pretty much up to Israel."
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, echoed the president's message in an interview with CBS News, saying that "it's not our job to tell them what they should or should not do."
"Certainly, if they ask for wisdom, counsel advice, I'm sure the president would offer it," said Huckabee. "But ultimately, it's the decision that the Israelis, and only the Israelis, can have."
The U.S. is Israel's top ally and leading supplier of weaponry. Since taking power in January, the Trump administration has declined to use U.S. leverage to secure an end to the bloodshed in Gaza, approving billions of dollars in American military assistance for Israel and lifting Biden-era holds on some particularly destructive weapons—including 2,000-pound bombs.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, told Common Dreams on Friday that "U.S. support for an Israeli takeover of Gaza is an admission that Trump, like Biden before him, lacks the will to really pressure Netanyahu to end the war."
"There was a cease-fire agreement that Netanyahu broke in March," Duss added. "The U.S. should be pushing him to return to that agreement rather than trying to secure a different one, which he will inevitably break."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who tried unsuccessfully to block two tranches of U.S. arms sales to Israel last week, wrote on social media Friday that "Biden was wrong about his support for Israel's war in Gaza."
"Trump is even worse," Sanders added. "The American people—Democrats, Republicans, Independents—do not want to continue spending billions of taxpayer dollars to starve children."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is leading a letter urging the Trump administration to recognize a Palestinian state, wrote Friday that "Netanyahu's plan to occupy Gaza is a red line."
"It is urgent for the U.S.—like France, U.K., Canada—to recognize a Palestinian state," Khanna wrote on social media. "This must be the position of the Dem Party. So far 18 have signed our letter. Every Dem should sign."
The FBI helping to locate Democratic state legislators who fled Texas to block GOP gerrymandering "raises serious questions about potential overreach and misuse of federal power," said members of Congress.
Democrats on key panels in the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to top Trump administration officials on Friday to demand answers about the potential misuse of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Texas legislators' gerrymandering battle.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Thursday that FBI Director Kash Patel approved his request for the bureau to "assist" with locating Democratic Texas legislators who fled to Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York to block a rigged congressional map that Republicans are trying to pass during a special session to appease President Donald Trump and help the GOP keep control of Congress next year.
Cornyn told radio host Mark Davis that Patel assigned FBI agents from two Texas cities, Austin and San Antonio, to meet his request. The senator also suggested that the state Democrats may be breaking the law by accepting money for travel—which came from Beto O'Rourke's political action committee, Powered by People, and the George Soros-backed Texas Majority PAC, according to The Texas Tribune—but neither Cornyn nor the director has provided details about FBI involvement.
Four Democratic leaders in the U.S. House want those details. Two members from Texas—Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett—joined Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (Calif.) for a Friday letter to Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, as the FBI is part of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Trump is reportedly deploying the FBI to hunt down Texas Democrats that are blocking Republican attempts to rig future elections. It’s a gross abuse of power. Oversight Dems and @democrats-judiciary.house.gov, led by @repcasar.bsky.social, @crockett.house.gov, and Robert Garcia, are investigating.
[image or embed]
— Oversight Dems (@oversightdemocrats.house.gov) August 8, 2025 at 11:12 AM
The congressional Democrats expressed "great concern about the abuse of federal public safety resources for completely political purposes and without a law enforcement rationale," and demanded information about the FBI's "involvement in efforts to locate or apprehend" Texas lawmakers "who are not accused of any federal crime but have chosen to break quorum during the current legislative session."
"Breaking quorum has occurred periodically in the Texas political process for more than a century," they noted. In this case, over 50 Democrats "left the state to counter President Trump's aggressive moves to consolidate power by redrawing congressional district lines in Texas to prevent being investigated by a Democratic majority" in the U.S. House.
Reports from the past 24 hours "suggest that the FBI is diverting federal law enforcement away from fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes to instead harass and target Texans' duly elected representatives, and thus raise urgent questions about the legal basis, scale, and appropriateness of federal law enforcement involvement in a state-level political matter," the letter continues, calling on the Trump officials to reply to a list of 10 questions by August 21.
"Given the FBI's crucial role as a federal law enforcement agency, it is essential that its actions be guided by clear legal authority, political neutrality, and an appropriate respect for the autonomy of state legislatures and their members," the letter stresses. "The involvement of federal agents in a state-level political dispute raises serious questions about potential overreach and misuse of federal power."
Trump's effort to redo Texas' congressional map—a model that the White House is trying to push in other GOP-controlled states—and related concerns about FBI involvement come amid broader fears about how the president and his allies are impacting the bureau.
Multiple media outlets reported Thursday that the administration is ousting at least three top officials—former acting Director Brian Driscoll, Walter Giardina, and Steven Jensen—as part of what critics called a "campaign to weaponize federal law enforcement and replace highly experienced public servants with political hacks eager to carry out Trump's retribution agenda."
Raskin said in a lengthy Friday statement that "Patel's unceremonious firing of Brian Driscoll reflects the accelerating purge at the FBI of anyone who refuses to pledge their blind and paramount loyalty to Donald Trump over the rule of law and the Constitution."
"Instead of investigating and stopping child predators, the FBI is now redacting their names from the Epstein files," Raskin said, referring to records from the federal case against deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was a friend of Trump. "Instead of hunting down terrorists and criminals, the FBI is tracking down state legislators standing up for voting rights."
"Instead of rewarding agents who love this country and keep their oath to the Constitution, the FBI is sacking them and replacing them with hacks and fanatics," he continued. "The firing of Mr. Driscoll and other career agents is a shameful affront to the rule of law and typifies the Trump administration's campaign to replace nonpartisan career law enforcement professionals with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants."
"The legality of this move should certainly be under scrutiny," said one international relations expert.
The New York Times reported on Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a secret order directing the United States Department of Defense to use the American military to combat against drug cartels in foreign nations.
According to the Times, the order gives the military authorization to carry out operations against cartels both at sea and on foreign soil. What's more, the paper reported that "U.S. military officials have started drawing up options for how the military could go after" the cartels.
The report then outlined some of the thorny legal issues involved with bringing the military in to handle what has traditionally been a matter for law enforcement. Among other things, the Times said that it's an unresolved question whether "it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians—even criminal suspects—who pose no imminent threat."
Experts who cover Latin American relations were quick to raise alarms about the Trump administration's plans, which they said would likely lead to needless civilian deaths while also failing to curtail the flow of drugs into the United States.
"The legality of this move should certainly be under scrutiny, but we should also discuss the mountains of evidence that show militarizing the war on drugs has never resulted in minimizing the market and rather increased violence against civilians massively," commented Renata Segura, the director of Latin America and the Caribbean Program at the International Crisis Group.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who is now a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group, commented on Bluesky that he's long been warning about unilateral military involvement in Latin America to fight the drug cartels and linked to an analysis he published earlier this year at Just Security in which he declared such a strategy to be "almost certainly illegal" and "definitely counterproductive."
In his piece, Finucane argued that any plans to bomb drug labs would likely turn into a Whac-A-Mole-style game given how "low-tech" and simple to build such labs have become, as evidenced by the American military's failed efforts to bomb opium-processing facilities in Afghanistan.
Additionally, Finucane warned that Mexico would likely look to retaliate against the U.S. for violating its sovereignty with military operations in its territory, which would damage Trump's goal of stemming the flow of migration to the southern U.S. border.
"Mexico could respond by curtailing or terminating assistance in stemming the passage of migrants through its territory," he explained. "Further, the unilateral bombing of drug labs or killing of narcos would also shut down the possibility of counter-narcotic cooperation with Mexico in the future."
Risa Brooks, a political scientist at Marquette University, argued on Bluesky that a U.S. military campaign in Latin America could be part of a broader effort to politicize the military and make it into an institution primarily loyal to the Republican Party.
"Missions that involve the U.S. military in counter cartel, as well as immigration and law enforcement roles, embroil it in controversy, because the public's attitudes about those missions are so polarized," she explained. "People that support the administration and these missions applaud the military's involvement. Those that don't come to mistrust it. The public starts to see the military as supporting one side in U.S. politics."
All of this, Brooks added, "normalizes the idea of the military as a partisan force" that is expected to serve at the behest of a political party rather than a nation.